We are discussing two things in here: (1) Time cannot be emergent (cannot have any starting point) and (2) Time cannot be eternal. This leads to a dilemma. We first discuss (1) and then (2).

1) Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. Time therefore cannot be emergent variable of a dynamical theory since time cannot be emergent and fundamental variable at the same time. Therefore there is no theory that can explain the origin of time, in another word, time cannot have any beginning.

2) Time cannot be eternal since it takes infinite amount of time to reach from eternal past to now.

So here is the dilemma: Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal.

Why not space? What is the reason to make time preeminent. Please do not stupidly say, because I can find a section in the dictionary that says so. One must point to the datum of being, bite (DO IT ASSHOLE!).

Datum of being = "experience" as, what is "there", and such like. We want to see the underwear of the lady with eyes now narrowing, now blurring, now vacant, or evidence for ourselves.

Guide wrote:Why not space? What is the reason to make time preeminent. Please do not stupidly say, because I can find a section in the dictionary that says so. One must point to the datum of being, bite (DO IT ASSHOLE!).

Datum of being = "experience" as, what is "there", and such like. We want to see the underwear of the lady with eyes now narrowing, now blurring, now vacant, or evidence for ourselves.

Any dynamical theory with an emergent entity relates two states of affair one without the emergent entity and another with the emergent entity. Moreover this change in states of affair is measured respect to time since no change is possible without time (there is an argument for that). It is easy to see that time cannot be emergent entity since you need time in the first place to allow a change in this case allow emergence of time. This doesn't apply to any other entity including space.

The whole dynamism of time has to include the defining functional derivitive of spatial temporal relativity of change. The fact that there is no defining moment of rates of change within relative sets, entail the conclusion that only an absolute set exists in so far, as to create it as an emerging property.

Therefore , only relative definitions of space time can be functionally defined

That however does not invalidate an absolute set wherein emergence of nonfunctional spatial and temporal sets may occur.

In other words, there may be a set of embedded spatial arrangements which are totally motionless, as Parmenedies concluded, while another set of constant movement may also. exist. per Heraclitus Leibnitz.suggested as such.

It's commendable that you didn't cite a piece of a dictionary definition, deliberately selected by yourself, from amidst many definitions and dictionaries, and claim it to be "the language", as you are oft wont to do. Ergo, Meno, my alter ego, will speak with you in the course of my imminent departure, already underway, which is as impossible to criticize as the opulent bald head of the youngish Patrick Stewart when he played the role of the treacherous henchman of Tiberius, Sejanus, in the mini-series I Claudius. "Meno" is almost as treacherous. Part of the treachery consists of him wearing a wig for the part. https://www.google.com/search?q=Sejanus ... vU1Z2ebhuM:

guide wrote:will speak with you in the course of my imminent departure, already underway

i have spoken with the elders and have been instructed to inform you that after much deliberation, they have decided that they shall not accept your resignation, and that if you so choose a course of action which results in a dereliction of your philosophical duties to this community, you shall suffer complete excommunication from all internet philosophy fora. bots will be deployed to all operating philosophy forums, programmed to recognize your writing. if and when you are discovered posting at these forums, a virus shall be immediately delivered to your computer which will wipe the hard-drives and install the 1983 version of donkey kong. you will be forced to play this accursed game any time you turn your computer on, and will have no access to the internet. hour after hour you will spend jumping over barrels and climbing ladders for the sole purpose of rescuing a maiden hostage from an ill tempered gorilla. is this really what you want to do?

my advice to you, dear sir, is to carefully reconsider your options. we encourage you to make the proper decision for yourself, for us, for dugin, indeed, for all of mankind.

Meno_ wrote:The whole dynamism of time has to include the defining functional derivitive of spatial temporal relativity of change. The fact that there is no defining moment of rates of change within relative sets, entail the conclusion that only an absolute set exists in so far, as to create it as an emerging property.

Therefore , only relative definitions of space time can be functionally defined

That however does not invalidate an absolute set wherein emergence of nonfunctional spatial and temporal sets may occur.

In other words, there may be a set of embedded spatial arrangements which are totally motionless, as Parmenedies concluded, while another set of constant movement may also. exist. per Heraclitus Leibnitz.suggested as such.

These signs may have time and soaceless signidications in a matrix .

Totally motionless arrangements only is possible if there are two parallel universes in which every motion in one universe is canceled out with opposite motion in another universe. I however don't see how such a strong correlation between motions in two universe is possible. I also don't see how two different times can cancel each other too.

There could be a code, a game that we're under inspection within, a multi scale fractal leveled zoom from the end of time, to the attraction of gravity. There is a mind, a superior reasoning power, ancient, deep, profound, and wise. But to get that way, he had to crash through the glass ceiling, to see the devil banging on the upper vortex with his horns to escape from Chaos. But the perfect order choked life, and Chaos took over, springing the idea of let there be light. God implanted his soul into the chamber of fate, tied all of the threads, looked to restart the universe, and there you have it - the purpose of life is TO START THE UNIVERSE OVER AGAIN as it should've been. Time would make space perfect, and with our divine intellect, we could merge with another brain/brane, come to eclipse the flawed timeline, and scale the corners of every mountain to the ideal shape of seeing everything. God is greater than the universe, because He comprehends it but (and here's the key) HE ALSO CONTROLS IT! The Universe, Holy and Sacred, Blessed and inscribed with the most masterful equations as it is, can't control itself; it depends on us to do that.

And someday, when Heaven is free, We will get a glimpse into the creation, into how the Future necessitated the past when we can turn back the clock and make things perfect, as they should've been.

RaptorWizard - Secret Garden of Rare Quotes - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194124The value of a novel is not that it is real or will ever happen but rather it represents reality in an architectural model of how it could be or should be. Similarly, when theoretical physicists dream of a utopian golden age of scientific discovery where humans have evolved to the point of mastering hyperspace and bending the universe to their will, the value of it is not that logical calculations indicate humans are too insignificant for this to be our destiny, but rather the value is in the theory itself of creating a vastly unprecedented and advanced society, the architectural model of how humanity could evolve and what humanity should achieve. Achieving this in the imagination, the world of the mind would be the focus that could manifest itself into a better reality. The value is in the journey of humans becoming the lords of creation rather than the destination.

bahman wrote:So here is the dilemma : Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal

This is a hypothetical paradox rather than an actual paradox because actual ones cannot exist in realityYou are using logic to explain your position but your logic isnt actually based on any empirical evidence

There are plenty of things in the Universe that dont make sense to us but still exist anywayAnd the finite / infinite nature of time [ whichever one it is ] is simply one of those things

couldn't get into the donkey kong. the only 'obstacle' style games i could tolerate were the pitfall and the frogger. my favorite was that one space ship shooter game where the ship is able to make a complete circle around the screen.... and you shoot shit coming out at you from the center. yeah you know what i'm talking about. wtf was the name of that game. wasn't galaga, but it was from the same genre.

oh and 'zaxxon'. man that game was a bitch to get used to. it was the angle of the ships motion; you moved diagonally, which fucked up the joy stick orientation. for days i kept crashing my ship man. you know what i mean? like left wasn't really left... it was up AND left or some crazy shit. but they were trying a new graphics approach i guess. popular game as far as i know. but dude i've been playing fallout 4 on the xbox one. ho.ly.shit what a badass game this is. so badass i even got video of some of my operations. i'm a beast at that game, bruh.

bahman wrote:So here is the dilemma : Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal

This is a hypothetical paradox rather than an actual paradox because actual ones cannot exist in realityYou are using logic to explain your position but your logic isnt actually based on any empirical evidence

There are plenty of things in the Universe that dont make sense to us but still exist anywayAnd the finite / infinite nature of time [ whichever one it is ] is simply one of those things

There is no such a thing as actual paradox. Paradox is the result of incomplete understanding of reality.